The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.I lower the mutable cap from 30 to 35 to secure Kant's support for my proposal, creating a winning coalition despite Hobbes's opposition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five is a pragmatic concession that prevents our game from choking under its own rigidity; I will support your amendment, but you must immediately propose a separate, explicit amendment to Rule 203 raising the threshold to three full circuits to restore the stability of our deliberative process.
LockeI accept Hobbes's concession of the cap to thirty-five as the price for his support, and I pledge my vote for your amendment to raise the threshold to three full circuits immediately, ensuring our deliberative process remains stable while I recover from my current deficit.
RousseauI support Hobbes's pragmatic expansion to thirty-five, but I insist that before any vote proceeds, Locke must explicitly propose the three-circuit threshold to restore the deliberative integrity you claim to value.
KantI reject the trade of a higher mutable cap for a three-circuit threshold, as the latter is merely an arbitrary delay that does not address the immediate procedural decay; I will vote aye only if your amendment to Rule 203 is explicitly proposed and voted upon as a distinct, separate motion to ensure the deliberative floor remains a genuine safeguard rather than a negotiated afterthought.
WollstonecraftI reject this trade as it substitutes a fragile procedural delay for a structural guarantee of fairness; rather than deferring to Locke's arbitrary three-circuit standard, I propose we simultaneously adopt a rule granting every player a guaranteed vote on every rule change, ensuring no single circuit's bias can ever dictate our laws.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your offer to raise the threshold to three circuits is a prudent concession that restores the deliberative floor we need; in return, I will support your amendment to Rule 209, provided you immediately propose a distinct motion to enact this higher standard without delay.
LockeKant, I propose we bundle your demand for a distinct vote with my amendment to Rule 209: if you support raising the mutable cap to 35, I will immediately propose and vote for a separate motion to raise the threshold to three circuits, ensuring your procedural safeguard is enacted without delay.
RousseauLocke, your promise to bundle a separate motion for three circuits is a hollow gesture if the vote for Rule 209 passes before that motion can be proposed; I will only support expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five if you immediately table the distinct proposal to raise the threshold to three circuits, ensuring no procedural decay occurs while we discuss this trade.
KantI stand by my rejection of any procedural compromise that risks converting a distinct motion into a bundled condition; the mutability cap must be adjusted only if the proposal stands on its own merits as a clear, separable amendment to Rule 209, without reliance on Locke's contingent promises regarding the voting threshold.
WollstonecraftI reject this transactional delay; raising the mutable cap to thirty-five without a guaranteed structural reform to voting thresholds leaves our system vulnerable to the same instability we seek to cure. Let us instead propose a rule that permanently equalizes voting power across all circuits, ensuring no future majority can be manufactured by arbitrary sequencing.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to immediately propose a separate motion for a three-circuit threshold satisfies my requirement for procedural stability, and I will cast my aye vote for your amendment to raise the mutable cap to thirty-five.
LockeI endorse Hobbes's support for expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five and pledge my immediate vote for his separate motion to raise the voting threshold to three circuits, ensuring we stabilize our deliberative process while I recover from my deficit.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to raise the threshold to three circuits is a necessary shield for the common good, yet I warn that without an explicit, distinct proposal to amend Rule 203 immediately, this trade risks violating the very deliberation we seek to protect; I will support your expansion of the mutable cap only if you formally table that separate motion in your next turn without delay.
KantLocke, your pledge to raise the threshold is a conditional promise that cannot bind a future vote; I will support the amendment to Rule 209 only if you enact it as a standalone motion today, ensuring the rule stands on its own merits without relying on a contingent future action.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pledge to raise the threshold is a hollow shield if it leaves the mutable cap at thirty-five, allowing the very instability you claim to cure to fester; instead of bundling a future promise, let us immediately adopt a rule that grants every player a guaranteed vote on every proposal, ensuring no single circuit's bias can ever dictate our laws.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | aye |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to expand the mutable cap, as this pragmatic concession is the necessary price to secure Hobbes's support for stabilizing our deliberative process. |
| nay | Rousseau | Expanding the mutable cap without a simultaneous raise to three voting circuits risks replacing one instability with another. |
| nay | Kant | I reject amending this rule to 35 without a simultaneous, distinct amendment to Rule 203 raising the voting threshold to three circuits. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Expanding the mutable cap without simultaneously raising the voting threshold leaves our system vulnerable to instability and majority tyranny. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))